Global Warming

[Dawlish]

You are now offically invited to join the exclusive Article Hound Society, member number 2. As an AHS you can enjoy such benefits as knowingly irritating people who don't like reading long articles, spending more time trawling through search engines for something nobody else has spotted yet, and subverting people's self-esteem. As you can only become an AHS by invitation, there is no charge. Get your own doggie biscuits.

Meantime: the freashwater comes out at Labrador at the surface, but a large proportion is drawn deep in the part of the current which circulates there. it comes out of the Fram Strait on the surface and tracks along the Greenland shelf before heading to other parts of the ocean and, according to Curry, it sits in the GIN waiting for a chance to pounce, just sort of mingling around. There is speculation that the strong deep convection which occurred to the SE of Greenland in the 80's could have been a sudden 'rush' caused by a saline/temp imbalance in this area.

:)P

Founder member and No 1 AHS.

Hey hey! Thanks P3. I'm a member of something other than the OMRLP! No dog biccies though - is it worth it!

My thinking was (and here is some hopeless speculation!); if Prof Wadham, in his borrowed nuclear submarine, found a significant decrease in the sinking columns of meltwater in the Greenland Sea, with possible negative implications for the strength of the polar driver of the thermohaline circulation - could these extra freshwater inputs compensate?

Paul

PS Extended "Cracker"; must go.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Dawlish

[parmenides3]

Hey hey! Thanks P3. I'm a member of something other than the OMRLP! No dog biccies though - is it worth it!

My thinking was (and here is some hopeless speculation!); if Prof Wadham, in his borrowed nuclear submarine, found a significant decrease in the sinking columns of meltwater in the Greenland Sea, with possible negative implications for the strength of the polar driver of the thermohaline circulation - could these extra freshwater inputs compensate?

Paul

PS Extended "Cracker"; must go.

Me too. In the meantime: I believe it has been generally accepted that Wadham assumed a little too much from his findings; there is a strong likelihood that what he measured was not a characteristic, but a localised phenomenon, which could have a variety of explanations. What he did find, though, was undoubtedly important, even if we cannot be sure of the implications yet.

To your second point, the suggestion is no, it couldn't. What is worrying the oceanographers is the possibility of a 'skin' of freshwater forming in the upper ocean, creating a stronger ocean-atmospere reaction, but a weaker convection downwards into the deep ocean. In par, this is expained by the fact that the ocean-atmosphere interface is only about 5mm thick. If insolation is expended heating the 'skin' layer, less is available to act on the transport layers immediately beneath it. These, in turn, would become more 'sluggish'. There are also implications for the carbon-sink rate and extensive implications for marine flora and fauna.

:)P

[blitzen]

I thought I caught a glimpse of an article somewhere last year about the Tundra permafrost defrosting causing it to turn into a soggy, smelly bog. Anyone know if this is continuing to happen?

Blitzen.

[parmenides3]

I thought I caught a glimpse of an article somewhere last year about the Tundra permafrost defrosting causing it to turn into a soggy, smelly bog. Anyone know if this is continuing to happen?

Blitzen.

This is a bit tricky. Permafrost (the top layer, at least) is often close to melting, and is in fact quite unstable in some ways. It also exists mostly in incredibly isolated and out of the way places. And it can't be mapped by satellite. So, although it has been observed and measured for 50 years or so, and although several recent reports indicate changes consistent with warming, it's really hard to get a clear picture. generally speaking, research is done in a number of specific locations and the large-scale situation is inferred from the data collected. So, although there have been reports for some years now of permafrost decline, nobody is that confident about what is happening or what the consequences of changes might be, I'll look for links to recent papers.

:)P

[Dawlish]

Me too. In the meantime: I believe it has been generally accepted that Wadham assumed a little too much from his findings; there is a strong likelihood that what he measured was not a characteristic, but a localised phenomenon, which could have a variety of explanations. What he did find, though, was undoubtedly important, even if we cannot be sure of the implications yet.

To your second point, the suggestion is no, it couldn't. What is worrying the oceanographers is the possibility of a 'skin' of freshwater forming in the upper ocean, creating a stronger ocean-atmospere reaction, but a weaker convection downwards into the deep ocean. In par, this is expained by the fact that the ocean-atmosphere interface is only about 5mm thick. If insolation is expended heating the 'skin' layer, less is available to act on the transport layers immediately beneath it. These, in turn, would become more 'sluggish'. There are also implications for the carbon-sink rate and extensive implications for marine flora and fauna.

:)P

Well said P3. You do know your stuff! Mind you, in his conclusions, Wadham was actually careful not to speculate. Others (especially the damn press) did that for him. You are right in saying that he may well have measured a localised phenomenen, but, at the time, trying to counter the barrage of (sorry to shout, but this is how it came over) HELP! THE NAD'S SHUTTING DOWN! HELP! with mitigating science was like trying to stem a tide of Chicken Little's, all clucking away at the same time! Also, it isn't easy to charter submarines to check his findings and see if the same is happening elsewhere!

Paul

Edited October 1, 2006 by Dawlish

[parmenides3]

Blitzen: this is the sort of thing you might be looking for: http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/assessment/alaska.html

There's plenty more in the same vein.

Paul: there's a neat programme of remote submarines whizzing around the Arctic Ocean at the moment measuring sea-ice; when they've finished that job, they can zoom off the Souther Greenland. Seriously, though, the area is being monitored quite carefully by at least one of the European agencies, I think it's the Danes. I also seem to recall a speculative link between the 'Wadham Zone' and the formation of Polar Lows, which sounded intriguing, involving several layers and phase changes at the same time.

:)P

[parmenides3]

1991?

February 1985: -0.1

Positive anomalies since then, apart from three, measured in hundredths of a degree.

That's the Global mean land and sea surface temperature anomaly, by the way.

So; 21 years and 6 months since the world was cooler than normal, as it were. Comments?

:)P

[Snowly does it]

February 1985: -0.1

Positive anomalies since then, apart from three, measured in hundredths of a degree.

That's the Global mean land and sea surface temperature anomaly, by the way.

So; 21 years and 6 months since the world was cooler than normal, as it were. Comments?

:)P

It definitely shows the trend is warmer.

What is the average anomoly in the 2000s? Is the anomoly increasing this decade compared to the last?

[parmenides3]

The annual global land and sea mean anomalies, back to 1960:

1960 -0.0019

1961 0.0738

1962 0.0785

1963 0.1315

1964 -0.1387

1965 -0.0641

1966 -0.0190

1967 -0.0049

1968 -0.0306

1969 0.0772

1970 0.0488

1971 -0.0569

1972 0.0280

1973 0.1416

1974 -0.0831

1975 -0.0297

1976 -0.1182

1977 0.1249

1978 0.0581

1979 0.1363

1980 0.2021

1981 0.2393

1982 0.1202

1983 0.2392

1984 0.0883

1985 0.0599

1986 0.1289

1987 0.2576

1988 0.3047

1989 0.1942

1990 0.3641

1991 0.3206

1992 0.1831

1993 0.2009

1994 0.2759

1995 0.3889

1996 0.2563

1997 0.4605

1998 0.5769

1999 0.3938

2000 0.3625

2001 0.4906

2002 0.5445

2003 0.5565

2004 0.5328

2005 0.6105

2006 -999.0000

Courtesy, NOAA.

I'll post a link to the NCDC climate records page; it's great!

There: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html I recommend a thorough browse; some of the best stuff takes some finding.

:)P

Edited October 2, 2006 by parmenides3

[The Penguin]

Keep in mind though that any anomaly is in relation to the datum, and the datum doesn't necessarily mean anything, it's just an arbitrary fixed point in time or value.

[parmenides3]

Keep in mind though that any anomaly is in relation to the datum, and the datum doesn't necessarily mean anything, it's just an arbitrary fixed point in time or value.

So those numbers don't show a warming trend then?

:)P

[The Penguin]

Yes, of course they do, it's just that the anomaly figures by themselves don't suggest impending doom and if the datum was changed (for whatever reason) the anomalies would appear more or less important.

[parmenides3]

Yes, of course they do, it's just that the anomaly figures by themselves don't suggest impending doom and if the datum was changed (for whatever reason) the anomalies would appear more or less important.

I don't think I was suggesting impending doom, was I Penguin? They're just a set of numbers. They do sort of hint that the climate is warming, I suppose. But I don't understand why the anomalies would appear unimportant if you changed the reference point (datum?); wherever zero is on the graph, it still goes up as time passes...

:)P

Edit: this explains why the NCDC uses anomalies:

The average annual temperature of the globe is about 59 deg. F (15 deg. C). That value can be added to global anomalies to approximate absolute temperatures. Anomalies (also called departures from average) are used because they describe more accurately climatic variability over large areas than the absolute temperatures do and they give a frame of reference that allows for easier interpretation of the numbers. For example, a summer month over a large area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures may be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average. For these reasons, it is the anomalies that are computed for large-area summaries (like a hemisphere or the globe), not the temperature itself.

The figures above are based on the 1901-2000 mean.

Edited October 2, 2006 by parmenides3

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

February 1985: -0.1

Positive anomalies since then, apart from three, measured in hundredths of a degree.

That's the Global mean land and sea surface temperature anomaly, by the way.

So; 21 years and 6 months since the world was cooler than normal, as it were. Comments?

:)P

Nothing to comment on AIN by the way....ouch wake me up

BFTP

[blitzen]

Blitzen: this is the sort of thing you might be looking for: http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/assessment/alaska.html

Thanks for that P3. A very interesting read.

Blitzen.

[parmenides3]

Nothing to comment on AIN by the way....ouch wake me up

BFTP

Glad to see you back, Blast. you're going to love this: (if you start by reading the conclusions, you'll understand why). I think there's plenty to discuss here.

)

Andersen04QSR.pdf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Glad to see you back, Blast. you're going to love this: (if you start by reading the conclusions, you'll understand why). I think there's plenty to discuss here.

)

Lots to read P, I will do so when i get home. Been back and forth and thanks for welcome. Yes seems like lots to discuss...looking forward to getting involved.

BFTP

[parmenides3]

Thanks for that P3. A very interesting read.

Blitzen.

No prob. Just reviewed chapter 7 of the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment), on Tundra & frozen ground. They report large scale warming of the permafrost over the past few years of several tenths of a degree, deeper melting, a reduction of permitted tundra travel days (days when its 'safe' to go off-road on the permafrost) down from 200 to 100 in the last ten years, and various other indicators of melting.

Also, remember BP has decided to pull out of Alaska. One reason is that the pipeline is built on top of permafrost, and the cost of repairs over the past few years has gone through the roof, because of buckling and subsidence.

There's also something, somewhere, about the state of play in Siberia; I'll look for it.

Can't wait, Blast. Viking 141 should read it, too.

:)P

Edit; here you go, Blitzen: remember, it's journalism... :)P

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/st...1546824,00.html

Edited October 2, 2006 by parmenides3

[Gray-Wolf]

Also, remember BP has decided to pull out of Alaska. One reason is that the pipeline is built on top of permafrost, and the cost of repairs over the past few years has gone through the roof, because of buckling and subsidence.

P

I remember that as early as 1974/75 (I believe) there were problems with the pipe-lines and B.P. et.al were saying that the fluids had to be kept warm to allow it to have a higher viscocity and therefore an increased potential rate of flow but that this heating had led to problems with the foundations of the pipe-line that were situated 'atop' of the perma frost .......did they know then and were fibbing or did this really lead to pipe line failures through the 1970's/80's ?

If they were telling the truth back then I wonder when it became apparent (to them) that their problem had 'expanded'? Did they lose too many vehicles to swampy conditions on the way to line faults since the mid 80's?

Edited October 2, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

I remember that as early as 1974/75 (I believe) there were problems with the pipe-lines and B.P. et.al were saying that the fluids had to be kept warm to allow it to have a higher viscocity and therefore an increased potential rate of flow but that this heating had led to problems with the foundations of the pipe-line that were situated 'atop' of the perma frost .......did they know then and were fibbing or did this really lead to pipe line failures through the 1970's/80's ?

If they were telling the truth back then I wonder when it became apparent (to them) that their problem had 'expanded'? Did they lose too many vehicles to swampy conditions on the way to line faults since the mid 80's?

Oops! Quick revision: Apparently, they aren't going to pull out of Alaska after all. One imagines that the threat worked and they got what they wanted from the US government. I'm sure their annual report will say how much pipeline maintenance costs; there's nothing about it on http://alaska.bp.com/

:)P

Edited October 2, 2006 by parmenides3

[Gray-Wolf]

Oops! Quick revision: Apparently, they aren't going to pull out of Alaska after all. One imagines that the threat worked and they got what they wanted from the US government. I'm sure their annual report will say how much pipeline maintenance costs; there's nothing about it on http://alaska.bp.com/

P

I knew they had closed down (the pipeline) for a major overhaul and the yanks were a bit jumpy incase a 'cane or two compromised supplies being delivered ' down south ' but Oil seems to command a very large potion of 'where theirs a will there's a way.' , strange that eh? all those alternatives to advance ,innovate and produce but they choose to spend cash on new ways of wringing out the last few barrels from near spent reserves????

[The Penguin]

I don't think I was suggesting impending doom, was I Penguin? They're just a set of numbers. They do sort of hint that the climate is warming, I suppose. But I don't understand why the anomalies would appear unimportant if you changed the reference point (datum?); wherever zero is on the graph, it still goes up as time passes...

All I was trying to say, dear 3p, is that on the ‘Daily Mail Scale’ an anomaly of, say 10.5 above datum, is a far more attention grabbing figure than say 0.5. Conversely, a deviation shown as a negative from the datum level kind of glosses over the possible situation that the latest figure is still one of a rising trend. Therefore, I am suggesting it is the level at which the datum figure is pitched that can influence the emotional interpretation of the resultant anomalies to the uneducated reader.

None of which is intended to denigrate either the concept of a datum / anomaly figure or any particular body for setting one.

[parmenides3]

All I was trying to say, dear 3p, is that on the ‘Daily Mail Scale’ an anomaly of, say 10.5 above datum, is a far more attention grabbing figure than say 0.5. Conversely, a deviation shown as a negative from the datum level kind of glosses over the possible situation that the latest figure is still one of a rising trend. Therefore, I am suggesting it is the level at which the datum figure is pitched that can influence the emotional interpretation of the resultant anomalies to the uneducated reader.

None of which is intended to denigrate either the concept of a datum / anomaly figure or any particular body for setting one.

A totally fair point, Pingu old chum. Personally, I would find it a he1l of a lot more convenient if the various measurers could agree on one reference point, so we could compare like with like; as it is, they all have their own favoured baseline. The best efforts I have seen tend to try and choose a 'climate neutral' period (one in which there is no obvious trend), and then measure around that. In terms of the emotional interpretation, it is interesting to speculate how much we would care about a headline which told us 'it's not as cool as it used to be', as opposed to 'it's warmer than it used to be'. back to the point (in a sense), one question we can ask of any set of data is ; 'is it warmer than it is supposed to be?'

:)P

[The Penguin]

I think in essence you’ve hit the problem on the head. There could well be an assumption that the datum is the proper, or normal (or even safe) condition when in this context that probably doesn’t exist as a finite value and certainly hasn’t been identified as yet. With that in mind it's hard to say whether any anomaly is significant.

[parmenides3]

I think in essence you’ve hit the problem on the head. There could well be an assumption that the datum is the proper, or normal (or even safe) condition when in this context that probably doesn’t exist as a finite value and certainly hasn’t been identified as yet. With that in mind it's hard to say whether any anomaly is significant.

This would seem to be pertinent: 'What is the Earth's ideal Climate?' - now that's what I call a question!

http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogsp...climate_20.html

The thing that worries me about datum levels is that, though they are needed (no question about that), they are artificial, in the sense that they presume a 'normal state', when we all know that the climate is rarely in a 'normal' state. But computer modelling requires a benchmark, and I am sure that the scientists involved go to great lengths to make the best (fairest) benchmark possible; if they didn't, their research would probably get shot down in flames.

:)P